It always seemed to me after various unpleasant encounters, that the most important thing is to recognize what you are facing, since a good many undead are very similar at first glance, especially in the dark. If you have anyone with good knowledge-religion or past experience with the foe, then any party with suitable equipment (burning oil / holy water) should be able to deal with whatsit.

In a prolonged foray against repeated and varied undead encounters, it's good to have a cleric and to save the cleric's powers for nasty surprises, rather than as your principal offense. Other than that, I prefer to NEVER go hand to hand with undead (see under ghoul/shadow PTSD).

A god might not have a very explicit code of conduct. However, a particular temple or diocese (whatever regional organization there may be) might have one that could be strict. Certain observances and clothing styles and contributions (!) may be expected and lack of conformity penalized, especially in any order-oriented religious group. Also, there could be governmental requirements, for example, in Cheliax, any non-diabolic might be required to wear clear identification or face arrest.

I mean its an RPG; the rulebooks shouldn't have to specify everything.

Vengeance is just a matter of righting the balance. It is only natural. Lust isn't avoidable; it just the way things are. It's just like a Calistrian bargain; it's perfectly reasonable. Face it, elves are wise, and their goddess is the embodiment of reasonable and appropriate actions. People just don't appreciate this.

Firefox with no auto-running video and Flash disabled and a hosts file that blocks all the major click-advertisers. Everything is very much faster this way. None of this is added software, just Firefox options and the hosts text file which short-circuits the ads.

Does it make any difference? Is any Republican different from any Democrat? Trump has mostly blown hot air. The rich get richer regardless. The system is geared to protect their wealth, which dis-invests the rest from that system. Do the climate accords make any difference? The agreements were actually vague future promises. Surely, the real issue is constant population growth, coupled with constantly increasing use of energy. I can't see any truthful model predicting anything except massive correction and die-back. Technological innovation and minor policy tweaks will do little except push the break-point back a bit. I don't see modern society as capable of any massive course-correction, except after such a die-back and probably not then.

Regardless of purpose or method of origin, the more laws the exist the more laws get ignored. Enforcement is a much varied point of focus, pushed by the attentions and agitations of the public and the training of officials. Trump's presidency is a signpost that might makes right, rich people are good people, and wealth trumps (heh) politics (and religion).

Trump seems to operate as dirty opportunistic business man. So if he gives secrets to the Russians, he's just paying a debt. His vision is that of world oligarchy run by the wealthy for the wealthy. Religion, politics, and race are just tokens to play in pursuit of this goal.

I think in the 1920's and 30's there were a lot of non-Baum versions of Oz, stage and silent movies. My local library didn't have very many of the original Oz books, but I guess I could find them online now.

The DM has wiggle room since there is an outright 1 in 100 chance of him selecting the new body anyway. I think the sensible way to play it is, if you want random, then roll it random and take what comes. If you want it to be more philosophical per your role-playing then the new body reflects your past actions rather than your family history. You could even re-train your blood-line (as per the Ultimate Campaign). You're going to be spending coin anyway on a Restoration.

It's always irked me though that druids don't get Restoration but they have Reincarnation which requires it to deal with the side effects.

I think if you can walk fast, you can walk slow. The intent of the rule is that it is easier for the paladin to heal himself. So, he can fight and heal himself at the same time. If it is otherwise legit to heal himself twice, then double healing.
If you can jump 4', you can jump 2'. It shouldn't be hard to figure that out.
There will be never be enough rules to deal with every situation. And the more rules there are, the more rules get forgotten or ignored.

Also, the bronze age rules in Pathfinder Ultimate Combat aren't really fair to bronze, which was NOT easy to work and which was as good or better than the early iron weapons. Iron was easier to work, good bronze took more effort. The switch to iron was more an economic decision.

Anyway, a skilled smith, by Pathfinder rules, could make magical bronze weapons which would then fix the fragile issues. Fragile is a little bit of a wierd category anyway. Obsidian and stone shatters. Metal frequently bends instead of breaking and can be repaired. Lay it flat and straighten it out.

Shaka is often said to have been dissatisfied with the long throwing "assegai", and is credited with introducing a new variant of the weapon: the "iklwa", a short stabbing spear with a long, sword-like spearhead ...
The throwing spear was not discarded but used as an initial missile weapon before close contact with the enemy, when the shorter stabbing spear was used in hand-to-hand combat.

Robert Jordan had the Aiel of the Wheel of Time, modeled on the Zulus. There is a d20 version of the Aiel around somewhere. And "what he said", several martial weapons are just better versions of the spear. The concept of the Aiel was that they were originally complete turn-the-other-cheek pacifists, but this became distorted over time to just having an aversion to using swords.

APG wrote in Create Pit:
You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient
size.
Since, you can't see the other side of the door, or even know that it is a real door instead of a fake door, I don't see how any ruling would allow the pit to bypass the door. In other words, you got to lay it down where it can obviously go, not stick it where you can't see it. Create Pit just isn't that kind of girl/boy.

From core:
Supernatural Abilities: These can’t be disrupted in combat and generally don’t provoke attacks of opportunity. They aren’t subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or dispel magic, and don’t function in antimagic areas.

Going back to extended use of charm, when a well treated charmed dragon finally makes it save, even if it is a gold or silver dragon, it will not be happy with you. Dragons have egos bigger than their size category. They may not harm you but they will YOU to be their puppet for a commensurate amount of time -- most likely the rest of your natural life.
Maybe a hydra or a troll or a wyvern will be less fussy or not even get what happened. It was all good eats!

The levels stack so I would vote yes. However, I don't see anything written down anywhere in the Bestiary or elsewhere beyond the caster levels stacking. All one-off monster-character builds are at the judgement of the referee so do it as you see relevant to the encounter.

Well, if you need sand for a sleep spell and you're grappled on a beach, then you can grab some.
Consider, if you're grappled, you can grab a taser out of your purse -- on a par with a wand. But, with a spell you have to cast the spell and get the necessary item. So, if grappled you could use one round to (try to) get the material component in your pouch, then it would be in hand, then you would be able to try to cast the spell in the next round.
Ordinarily, you don't have to do this if the material component is in your pouch. So, in a sense, it's still possible, but you have to spend an action to get the item into your hand while grappled.

All are judgement calls, dependent upon relative power levels of the caster and the subject. Regardless of the charm, critters will remember how you treated them. The dragon will know you are casting charms, but it will rationalize it as "well, he's just practicing" if it's still charmed. Generally, enchantments are only workable as temporary solutions. The moment the critter makes the save and has the upper hand, you will get what you deserve.
The referee decides on personal histories, initial attitudes, and what actions are relevant. So, you should decide whether you talking as a player or as a referee.

The DM/GM rules on Diplomacy. After all he determines the starting attitude of NPCs in encounters. Diplomacy, as used in modules and such, is always ad hoc and inconsistent. So and so becomes friendly because you do this, unfriendly because you do that, and diplomacy rolls are just a last resort when the role-play aspect is at a loss.

Also, the questions are whether the Diplomacy roller is speaking for the group, trying to change the NPCs attitude, or simply trying to convince them to do a particular thing. Some one may like you but that doesn't mean they'll do whatever you want them to do. Some one may dislike you but they still may think a request or bargain is reasonable.

Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target.

Bestiary wrote:
Create Spawn (Su): A vampire can create spawn out of those it slays with blood drain or energy drain, provided that the slain creature is of
the same creature type as the vampire’s base creature type.

You got to be one to make one. So, humanoid vampires can drain a ghoran but won't create spawn from one.
Look for an evil power who has plant and undead domains. Their priest could create the original ghoran vampire.

A good character would have hope for the human spirit. He would spare the guards, because (1) he doesn't want to kill and (2) he hopes they will come around to his point of view. To some extent, good is a kind of arrogance.
In stories, typically in movies and such, the bad guys frequently behave more mercifully than the "good" guys, because you can't kill the hero, whereas the good guys slay people left and right without a thought.
That's why shows like Game of Thrones deliberately kill off major good characters. They writer hates that trope/rule.

I just looked at the brawler. The brawler gets to use the "close" weapon group with his flurry, mixing it with unarmed strikes as he wishes. Gauntlet is listed in the close weapon group. It is also listed as a light melee weapon in Ultimate Equipment -- although not in the Core book (6th printing I have).

Maybe the part of armor / hand slot issue is what is keeping the weapon-like enchantments and combat feats away. There are quite a number of magical gauntlets in Ultimate Equpment that aren't listed as weapons, although they do neat things sometimes related to combat.
Quote: The hand slot consists of gauntlets, gloves, and other items that can be worn on the hands.

I think the idea was that a gauntlet deals lethal damage but still provokes an attack of opportunity except if you are skilled in unarmed combat like a monk or have an equivalent ability.

So EET IS NOT SO BAD. A fighter needs improved unarmed strike to not provoke AOO when striking with a gauntlet. Gauntlets aren't listed as light weapons. I see them listed in the "close" weapon group in Ultimate Combat, along with brass knuckles and the cestus. But I don't see "close" given any explanation except as a group name.

A monk's special weapons use the same bonuses (unchained or not) and can be switched with unarmed strikes as wished. But a gauntlet isn't a monk weapon, because a gauntlet would be partial armor. So a monk doesn't always have to fight with his bare hands to get his special benefits, unchained or not.

I haven't used the brawler at all so I am not sure how this fits in between a monk and a fighter with improved unarmed strike.

So, a fey creature table might be anything with similar HD to the original, up to and including my personal favorite the fey chuul, winged, clawed, tentacled, very very sweet, and she has an alternate form of your choice.

I guess that means you don't like vegemite. But there is a better example of eating sentients. We have the amazing ghoran of Garund, who produces good berries on his/her body. Nibble your comrade while you travel! But we are straying from the poor unicorn. I can't get past the unicorn in literature and why girls like to ride horses. Naughty girls would be spurned and more likely to cook and eat the unicorn.

Yea, not workable as deception, but the multiple figures could have entertainment value so Sense Motive unless the NPC is otherwise hostile. Any speller who has that on their spell list would be wary right quick though.

I have questions. Why are you calling the poachers "poachers?" Robin Hood was a poacher; he was chaotic good by most conceptions. How do you or anyone know the poacher are/were evil? Maybe the unicorn attacked them?
Why would a dragon prefer cooked unicorn over raw unicorn? Cooked unicorn spells TRAP. Anyway, open air encounters with an intelligent dragon are a bad idea. The dragon has no reason to take any risks. This sound more like a strategy for dealing with a wyvern. Anyway, the primary purpose of the player actions here seems to be to mess with the DM. I don't think fey or druids would care about the "act."
Also, the cannibalism thing as quoted from a Pathfinder wiki is a no go. While conceptualizing everyone as one great big huggly-wuggly sounds good, it doesn't relate to canniabilism as defined in common English. Cannibalism is mommas eating babies when they're hungry, eating dead associates in a starvation situation, or ritual cannibalism by eating hearts or livers.
A man cooking a talking dolphin, a dragon eating an uppity maiden, or adventurers checking out unicorn drumstick ain't cannibalism, although it may be bad politics. I don't care what a wiki or a developer says, it's meaningless to extend the word to that extent.

It's odd but Wikipedia actually shows the daemon as originally benign household gods. Plato, however, had a grudge against the concept and started calling them bad things, and the later Chritian writers went with that flow. I think in AD&D they showed up in Vault of the Drow, since Eclavdra was I believe Neutral Evil instead of chaotic. A bedpost thingy summoned some daemon to a luxurious bedroom, and of course he was expecting a good time not adventurers. Also there was a guardian daemon that had variable powers, generally used to guard big locked treasure chests.

It's fecund not fecal. Fertile (hence swarm) vs made of s$!!. The description says its normal armor applies, so probably barkskin would work but it's a swarm, so you're worried about area attacks. Magic fang wouldn't affect damage, which is per swarm subtype but might allow that swarm damage against otherwise immune creatures. The familiars are limited by the archetype since they require a familiar that has a swarm version,
Maybe you could make an argument for an some improved familiars to swarm like that if they had an alternate form matching those listed -- i.e. imp or quasit in an alternate form, in which case you might get some help against damage resistance.
But I think the familiars are deliberately limited to those creatures that match the flavor of the archetype; you are not a normal wizard with a familiar. You are a Swarm Monger druid with little swarm friends who love your fecal matter -- well, anybody's fecal matter probably.

RPG-wise, I think a pseudo-nymph would be so disappointing after encountering a real nymph (provider of the base element) that there is no way the pseudo-nymph would be inspiring, magically or otherwise.

I think quantity counts as to whether something is a toxin. For example, lots of "nutritional supplements" and "homeopathy" are based on magic. The FDA allows them to make bogus claim provided that no one would seriously take them as truth and that the substances used do not actually cause harm. Except people decide that if a little is claimed to be good, then more would be better, and then you get people getting sick form 30 cups of herbal whatever in a day.

Most spells, with reincarnation and raise dead being the low end, are based on the trope that the soul separates then moves off. The soul has to do a significant astral journey to be judged by Pharasma. Length of time dead matters. It is a fifth level spell that only saves you within 1 round, so conceptually, the soul didn't do more than start to separate from the body. It seems reasonable that the soul would have a choice, especially since a Will save is indicated. The Will (half) save applies to undead, who are instantly destroyed at zero hit points. The Will negates must surely apply to a soul that does not want to return.

The Greek phalanx used long spears. The Romans were noted for tower shields, short swords, and javelins, with auxiliaries for other things usually archers, slingers, and cavalry. Pathfinder combat doesn't worry about close-in weapon differences, so you could give your legionnaires long swords as an equivalent.

Mobs of skeletons with good gear instead of broken gear are very dangerous to a pure combat party. The Bestiary skeletal champion is a good commander for a group of skeletons.

Philosophical Comment: Sometime after some of the dust has settled, one True Neutral is not surprised at Iomedae's behavior. After all, good is only a stick for beating others. I'm good, you're not. Likewise, lawful means follow my rules or else I will inflict pain. Anyone who pretends to act without self interest is simply dishonest. Evil isn't all bad. Good is disguised self aggrandizement. To expect good behavior out of a good deity is unreasonable. To expect constant bad behavior out of an evil deity is ridiculous.

Practical Comment: These are adventurers with considerable combat related training. Eh? It is a common thing in martial training to receive some pain. Iomedae is a very martial god in a hurry. As seen in the forums many PCs are pompous inflated pricks who need deflating. So what do you expect? What you got. Iomedae is just treating them like she would any martial student who got uppity in sparring.

If the person is acting suspicious, then they deserve being checked out. That has nothing to do with whether they are a doppelganger. Charms, possession, illusion, et cetera are valid concerns.

Doppelgangers aren't stupid. If it is arousing suspicion, it will split. So it won't copy someone it can't effectively mimic except for a brief tactical advantage. Also, it will probably try to create a distraction by focusing folk's attention on some reasonable other crisis.

Nethys says it is unreasonable not to be casting magic spells all the time. Don't stop players from using the tools they've got. But identifying a spell effect in place is Knowledge-arcana check DC 20 + spell level. Add a circumstance modifier, so DC 24, rolled by the GM, if suspicion is aroused.

Looking at old message boards on sahuagin, sahuagin have a swim speed of 60. They could safely take out the giant crab with their heavy crossbows at the second range increment, but they would use a lot of bolts. The range penalties would be -2 for second increment of range plus -2 for every 5' of water. So only natural 20 hits would work. As long as they had plenty of ammunition and no objective to defend they would all live.